Introduction:

In the contemporary social and intellectual climate, Muslims are repeatedly measured by their educational backgrounds. Their engagement with modern education determines whether they should be labelled as “advanced” or “backward”. It becomes essential, therefore, to understand modern education through an Islamic lens. The very lens that forms a “true Muslim identity”. It is within this context, the vision of modern education advanced by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, needs to be carefully considered. Often associated with the title “Islamic reformer”, Sir Syed’s advocacy for modern education continues to influence discussions on educational reform, Muslim identity and the broader intellectual discourse across the world.

It is within this backdrop that I am reminded of a profound remark once made by my late aunt, Safia Hala: “Allah k Deen main reformation ki zarurat Nahin aur jinmein zarurat ho, woh Allah ka Deen nahin”— “There is no need for reformation in Allah’s Deen, and whatever requires reform is not the Deen of Allah.” Her words continue to resonate deeply, framing the central inquiry of this article: to what extent does Sir Syed’s vision reflect an attempt to reconcile Islamic principles with modern education, and to what extent might it have inadvertently hollowed the essence of Islam?

Was Sir Syed Condemned Merely for Advocating ‘Modern Education’ or Was There More to It?

Undeniably, Sir Syed’s efforts to bridge communities and uplift the Muslim community through educational reform was groundbreaking. His decisions were made in the context of a turbulent colonial era, where Muslims were politically weak and socially divided. “The Mohammedans were packed up by the British in pigskins and pork’s fat was applied on them. Their bodies were charred and the Hindus were compelled to defile them.”^[1]— The aftermath of the First War of Independence (1857) left Muslim communities reeling under brutal persecution. In the midst of this turmoil, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan witnessed the terrible consequences of the limited engagement of Indian Muslims with modern science and technology. The 1857 war was marked as a juncture, igniting a profound need for modern educational reform among Muslims. Recognizing this urgency, Sir Syed embarked on a mission to bridge the gap between West and Indian Muslims. He advocated for the introduction of Western education and technology that would advance Muslims in modern sciences and the English language. ^[2]

Many might mistakenly assume that Sir Syed was boycotted by Islamic scholars, solely due to his advocacy for Modern education. Although he did reference Islamic texts to reinforce his ideas, including Quranic verses that emphasize reasoning, the criticism he faced stemmed from broader, more nuanced factors. It sparked widespread opposition to his work and yet largely remains unaddressed. 

“The angels mentioned in the Qur’an cannot have any real, independent existence. Rather, the manifestations of God’s infinite powers, and the faculties of various kinds that God has created throughout His creation, are called malak or mala’ikah (angel or angels).”^[3]; “The facts relating to the human soul, the secrets which are open to it, the effects of good and bad deeds upon it and the condition into which the soul falls after the death of a human being (and which is called the resurrection) could not be understood by human beings without allegorization”^[4] are some of the statements attributed with Sir Syed.

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s approach to modern education can be understood through three connected concepts:

1. Scientific rationality: Rahmani Begum Mohammad Ruknuddin Hassaan explains^[5] that Sir Syed accepted logic and science as the main criteria for judging the validity of social customs among Muslims. He rejected traditions that ‘he’ considered ‘irrational.’ Hassaan further explains that, according to Sir Syed, ‘irrational’ and ‘unreasonable’ accounts unsupported by revelation should be rejected. Similarly, accounts presented as revealed knowledge should be considered untrue if they do not correspond with the nature of things. Hassaan also explains that Sir Syed interpreted certain Islamic accounts symbolically rather than literally, in line with ‘his understanding’ of nature.

2. The laws of nature: Sir Syed connected Islam to the understanding of nature. He wrote, “the only touchstone of a true religion can be this: if it is in conformity with human nature or with nature in general, then it is true. This would be a clear proof that the religion in question has come from God, the Author of nature both in man and outside.”^[6] His article, “Islam is Nature and Nature is Islam”, further reflects this approach.

3. Qur’anic revelation: Sir Syed applied his understanding of the laws of nature to interpreting the Qur’an. He stated, “I do not deny the possibility of miracles because they are against reason, but because the Quran does not support the happenings of events or occurrences that are against the laws of nature or those that violate the usual course of things.”^[7]

At first glance, this may appear to mean that he rejected claims unsupported by the Qur’an. However, if looked closely, the key issue is how ‘he’ determined what was ‘reasonable’ or ‘natural’. He judged this through his understanding of natural laws, developed through human observation and scientific knowledge. Consequently, this understanding became a standard for interpreting Qur’anic accounts. Commenting on this, Dr. Israar Ahmed points out that such an emphasis on external adherence can lead to a neglect of the core Islamic teachings since belief in the unseen is negated over the seen things.^[8]

If analysed thoroughly, the development of science reveals the limitations of human understanding. Scientific knowledge develops alongside the methods, instruments, and intellectual capacities available in a given period. As these tools advance, human beings discover aspects of reality that previously remained beyond their understanding. Yet science remains limited, however much it advances. It cannot encompass reality in its entirety, for Allah alone is “Knowing of all things.”^[9] Recognising this attribute of Allah is part of Tawheed, for absolute knowledge belongs to Him alone and cannot be attributed to any of His creation. Human beings may acquire knowledge and expand their understanding of creation, but they can never possess the complete knowledge that belongs to Allah alone.

Allah describes the believers in Surah Al-Baqarah as those “Who believe in the unseen” ^[10] The existence of angels and jinn is established through the Qur’an and Hadith. Their existence does not depend upon whether human beings can observe them or establish their existence through scientific instruments. Allah says in the Qur’an: “And He creates that which you do not know.”^[11] Reducing angels to mere symbols because their existence cannot be accommodated within a particular understanding of natural science departs from the Islamic understanding of the unseen. This approach reinterprets an established teaching of Islam according to the limits of human understanding.

This reminds me of a conversation with a teacher at Umeed Global School, who stated: “Science does not prove Quran, but instead it discovers the Quran.” Scientific inquiry may lead human beings to discover aspects of creation to which the Qur’an directs their attention. Such discoveries may deepen their understanding of the natural world, but they do not determine the truth of revelation. The Qur’an does not depend upon scientific confirmation.

It is therefore problematic to treat the conclusions of any particular stage of scientific development as the final authority for determining the meaning of ‘true knowledge’. The claim that a true Deen must align with a particular framework of human reasoning, and that teachings which do not conform to it must be abandoned, conflicts with the fundamental of Islam that Allah is Al-A’lim (All Knowing of all things).

It is crucial to highlight that Islam does not prohibit the acquisition of knowledge or the use of reason to understand the world. Rather, the Qur’an itself directs human beings to observe creation and reflect upon it. Allah says, “Say, [O Muḥammad], ‘Travel through the land and observe how He began creation.’”^[12] This instruction establishes the significance of observation and rational inquiry. Human beings are expected to observe creation, reflect upon what they encounter, and use their understanding to understand the world around them.

Did the Call for Westernisation Strengthen Muslims or Strip Them of Their Very Identity?

Sir Syed in his periodical’s first issue, Tahzib-ul-Akhlaq. writes: “Muslims in India must be persuaded to adopt Western civilization fully so that the civilized nations stop looking down upon them with scorn and they may also be recognized as respectable in the world.” ^[13], commenting on this, Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi, in his book “Western Civilization, Islam, and Muslims” writes: “Sir Syed gave himself no respite. He gave day in and day out he urged Muslims to borrow the Western social practices, including their habits of food and drink, whole-heartedly.” ^[14]

The most defining aspect of Sir Syed’s vision was his emphasis on Westernization. He believed that only through embracing Western education, literature, and rational thought could Muslims regain their former stature.^[15] But according to him, this was not a call to renounce Islamic values. Sir Syed was strongly committed to reconciling Islam with modernity. As he remarked, “Philosophy will be in our right hand and Natural Science in our Left, And the crown of ‘there is no God but Allah and Mohammad is His Prophet’ will adorn our heads”. ^[16]

However, despite Sir Syed Ahmed Khan’s advocacy for modern education in light of Islam, his vision appears to have contradicted the very substance of Islam. This concern can be examined through the very terms used for the establishment of the Anglo-Mohammedan Oriental College, in 1875, i.e., “Mohammedan” and “Oriental.”

Edward Said writes in his book Orientalism (1978): “The reception of Islam in the West is a perfect case in point, and has been admirably studied by Norman Daniel. One constraint acting upon Christian thinkers who tried to understand Islam was an analogical one: since Christ is the basis of the Christian faith, it was assumed—quite incorrectly—that Muhammad was to Islam as Christ was to Christianity. Hence the polemic name ‘Mohammedanism’ given to Islam and the automatic epithet ‘impostor’ applied to Muhammad. Out of such and many other misconceptions, ‘there formed a circle which was never broken by imaginative exteriorization…..Islam became an image’—the word is Daniel’s, but it seems to me to have remarkable implications for Orientalism in general, whose function was not so much to represent Islam in itself as to represent it for the medieval Christian.”^[17]

The gravity of these terms lies in how Sir Syed viewed Muslims and Islam. The use of the term Mohammedan for his college reflects an unislamic framework for understanding Islam. This raises a fundamental concern about how he understood Muslim identity while advocating an educational vision that he claimed was in the “light of Islam.” The term Oriental connects this discussion to Edward Said’s critique of Orientalism. It exposes how an established Western framework determined what constituted “advancement” or “backwardness” in Muslim identity and intellectual development.

In Sir Syed’s framework, it appears that he prioritized worldly respect and recognition over preserving the true teachings of the Islam. The value of a modern education system was measured by its acceptance in the West rather than its capacity to strengthen authentic Muslim identity. As noted earlier, the underlying rationale for establishing the university was not primarily to convey the message of Allah, but rather to prevent the so-called “civilized nations” from looking down on Muslims. While this approach may seem effective in providing material and social empowerment, it risks eroding the essence of Islam where knowledge is no longer pursued for its transformative power but for its market utility.

As discussed above, what should have remained a means of educational advancement instead became the ultimate standard for measuring Muslim intellectual worth. Modern science and education acquired the authority to determine what should be considered rational or irrational, civilized or uncivilized. Therefore, one who adopts an Orientalist approach to modern education may consequently feel compelled to establish the validity of Islam according to the standards of the dominant civilization. Sir Syed’s stance therefore stood against the warning of Umar ibn al-Khattab, (the second Caliph of Islam), رضي الله عنه. As reported by Tariq ibn Shihab, he said: “We were a disgraceful people, and Allah honored us with Islam. If we seek honor in anything other than what Allah gave us, He will disgrace us.”^[18]

If education is judged primarily by its ability to confer worldly respect rather than by its capacity to foster understanding and practice of Islam, Muslims risk losing their very identity. For the human beings were not created to live like animals, driven by territorial survival and the competition for power and dominance. They were created to fulfil the purpose for which Allah created them: As Allah says in the Qur’an: “And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me” ^[19] Yet, when human beings turn away from this purpose and become absorbed in worldly pursuits, Allah describes the heedless among them: “And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Those are like livestock; rather, they are more astray. It is they who are the heedless.” ^[20]

Why Must Sir Syed’s Vision of Modern Education Be Understood Today?

As I write this article today, I find myself deeply troubled by a pattern I have witnessed among my own people. It is a pattern that frightens me to my bones. I see a striking resemblance between Sir Syed’s pursuit of restoring the socio-political standing of Muslims in his time and what continues among the so-called intellectual elite of Muslims today.

Outwardly, it may appear that our colonial rulers have departed and that the circumstances have changed. Yet, while those who rule may have changed, the same pattern persists. Much like the Muslims of Sir Syed’s time, we continue to seek validation and recognition from the very people whose standards we look towards to restore our standing in society.

This pattern becomes evident in the way contemporary Muslim intellectuals and activists speak about oppression, marginalisation, and backwardness. These concerns are frequently expressed through the very language and frameworks established by the system whose standards we seek to challenge. We determine whether Muslims are advanced or backward according to the criteria that this system has established. Even our understanding of marginalisation becomes dependent upon whether we fit within its framework. When we fail to meet its standards, we describe our position as one of marginalisation and turn towards the same system, seeking recognition and political authority within it.

We begin to understand ourselves because the system classifies us as such. Having accepted these classifications as the measure of our position, we then devote our efforts to proving that we are not what the system says we are. We struggle to demonstrate that Muslims are capable of advancement and that we too deserve recognition.

We have accepted their explanation and then made it our purpose of life to advance with their systemic definitions. Consequently, much of our activism revolves around questions of how Muslims can regain political authority and advance themselves within their existing framework. We devote our efforts to demonstrating our worth according to standards established by others, hoping that recognition from these institutions will restore our standing. But when our very understanding of progress remains dependent upon the framework that classifies us as backward, have we challenged that framework, or have we submitted to it?

This contradiction becomes evident in the way we celebrate our achievements. When a Muslim institution receives recognition or accreditation from a prestigious authority, when a Muslim individual succeeds according to the standards of the prevailing system, or when our communities are declared to have progressed within its framework, we witness an unnecessary hyped-up celebration of empowerment. But what, precisely, are we celebrating? Have we genuinely established our independence, or have we merely demonstrated our ability to succeed according to standards established by others?

How can we speak of empowerment when our very understanding of success remains dependent upon the approval of those whose definitions we have accepted? If our empowerment is contingent upon our conformity to their definitions of progress and development, then what kind of empowerment have we achieved? We may have gained recognition within their system, but we remain subordinate to the framework through which that recognition is granted. We celebrate our advancement while remaining enslaved to their definitions of what advancement means. The contradiction becomes even more troubling when we consider that our struggle to prove our worth begins with an acceptance of the very judgement we seek to overturn.

With this, I can unapologetically say that we, as Muslims, are collectively suffering from Stockholm syndrome. We seek acceptance and validation from the very structures that have contributed to our enslavement. Rather than directing our efforts towards establishing institutions grounded in Islam, we continue to plead for recognition within an existing order. We convince ourselves that if we succeed according to its standards, acquire its qualifications, or obtain its recognition, we will have finally restored our standing.

We seem to forget that the framework through which we measure our success was established by a system whose underlying values contradicts Islam. Recognition may establish that we have met the expectations of a particular institution or system. It does not, by itself, establish that the standards we have met are consistent with Islam. Nor does success within an existing order necessarily mean that we have freed ourselves from its authority. Nevertheless, we continue to measure our progress through its definitions of freedom, development, and rights. We may claim that we are not submitting to this system, yet our actions reveal how deeply its recognition has become tied to our identity.

This is precisely where the resemblance to Sir Syed’s approach becomes apparent. His concern was to restore the standing of Muslims under British rule. He believed that adopting Western education and values would help Muslims regain their position and prevent the British from looking down upon them. Today, we encounter a remarkably similar argument. We are told that Muslims must adapt to contemporary circumstances, accommodate the prevailing system, and adopt its standards if they wish to overcome backwardness and regain their standing.

The circumstances have changed, but the reasoning persists. We continue to believe that we must prove our worth according to the standards of those from whom we seek recognition. In this pursuit, we risk adopting values that may contradict Islam, justifying our choices through the language of rationality and practicality. We tell ourselves that circumstances leave us with no alternative.

Have ‘Rational’ Muslims Submitted to the ‘Circumstances’?

Consider the example of Prophet Yoosuf عليه السلام When he was faced with the invitation to commit what was forbidden,

“He said, ‘My Lord, prison is more to my liking than that to which they invite me. And if You do not avert from me their plan, I might incline toward them and [thus] be of the ignorant.’”^[21]

Prophet Yoosuf عليه السلام knew that refusing the invitation could lead to his imprisonment. He faced the prospect of losing his freedom and having his future disrupted. Yet, the threat did not cause him to abandon his principles. He did not submit to the demand simply because refusing it could place him in a difficult situation. He did not justify compromising his obedience to Allah by appealing to what we so readily call “circumstances.”

Consider how a so-called rational man might have judged his decision. Imprisonment could have appeared disastrous. It could have meant losing opportunities and jeopardising his future. Someone concerned primarily with preserving his prospects might have concluded that compromising his principles was the more practical choice. He might have reasoned that refusing the invitation would bring consequences that could otherwise have been avoided.

Yet Prophet Yoosuf عليه السلام did not allow such calculations to determine his conduct. He did not treat the immediate consequences of his decision as the ultimate measure of what was right. Allah describes his protection:

“And thus [it was] that We should avert from him evil and immorality. Indeed, he was of Our chosen servants.”^[22]

His example reminds us that human beings cannot determine every outcome through their own understanding of the circumstances before them. We can assess the possibilities available to us, but we cannot claim complete knowledge of what our decisions will ultimately lead to. What appears to threaten our future may not be the end of our prospects.

Allah says: “And thus We established Joseph in the land to settle therein wherever he willed. We touch with Our mercy whom We will, and We do not allow to be lost the reward of those who do good.”^[23]

The prison was not the end of Prophet Yoosuf’s story. The outcome that might have appeared to destroy his prospects preceded his establishment in the land. What a so-called rational man might have judged to be a disastrous decision did not prevent Allah from granting him authority.

This does not mean that every difficult situation will necessarily lead to worldly success. Rather, it demonstrates why immediate circumstances cannot serve as the ultimate measure of a decision. We cannot justify abandoning Islamic principle merely because we fear the consequences of upholding it. Our assessment of what is possible remains limited, whereas the knowledge of Allah is complete.

A similar lesson emerges from the Battle of Badr. When fighting was prescribed for the Muslims, they disliked it. Allah says:

“Battle has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allāh knows, while you know not.”^[24]

This verse establishes a fundamental limitation of human reasoning. What we perceive as beneficial may not be so, and what we perceive as undesirable may hold a good that we cannot foresee. Our judgement is formed through the knowledge available to us. Allah, however, possesses knowledge beyond the limits of our understanding.

We must therefore examine the reasoning through which we justify our submission to contemporary circumstances. We fear that refusing to accommodate the prevailing system will leave us disadvantaged. We believe that unless we adopt its standards, we will remain backward or lose our standing. Consequently, we begin to compromise on our Tawheed in the name of rationality and practicality. We grant the prevailing order the authority to determine what we must accept to be recognised as successful.

We may verbally insist that our ultimate submission is to Allah alone. Yet, when our actions are governed by the need for approval from those outside our Islamic framework, we must question the authority we have effectively granted them. We seek their validation to restore our honour. We look towards their standards to determine whether we have progressed. We then justify our accommodation by claiming that circumstances leave us with no other choice.

The examples of Prophet Yoosuf عليه السلام and the Battle of Badr challenge precisely this assumption. Both demonstrate that what appears unfavourable according to our immediate assessment does not necessarily determine the ultimate outcome. We cannot claim that our limited understanding of circumstances gives us sufficient grounds to abandon our principles. Nor can we make recognition by the prevailing system a condition for restoring Muslim honour.

Ultimately, we must confront the contradiction between claiming to seek the restoration of Muslim honour and continuing to measure that honour through the recognition of from other than Allah. For Allah says in the Qur’an: “Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor [through power]? But indeed, honor belongs to Allāh entirely”.^[25] We cannot speak of restoring our standing while making the standards of an external system the measure of our success. Nor can we claim to uphold Tawheed while allowing the fear of worldly consequences to determine what we are willing to compromise upon.

As Allama Iqbal rightly writes:

Woh zamane mein mu’azzaz the Musalmaan ho kar

Aur tum khwar hue taarik-e-Qur’an ho kar.

English translation:

They were honoured in their time by virtue of being Muslims (submitting to Allah),

While you have been disgraced despite being the people upon whom the Qur’an was revealed.

Conclusion

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan left an impactful legacy through his remarkable efforts. Today, the torch has passed to us, the students, staff, and faculty members of Aligarh Muslim University. The questions before us are crucial: How do we adapt Sir Syed’s vision to contemporary challenges? How do we ensure that AMU remains relevant today while remaining grounded in Islam and submitting to Allah alone? How do we understand modernity as a byproduct of rationalism and growing Westernization? How do we explain to Muslim intellectuals and elites that the first step towards a truly practical approach is to identify the problem itself? How do we explain that the problem lies in submitting to people and external sources besides Allah? How do we explain that restoring Muslim honour requires us to condemn the authority of a system that demands submission to human standards over the guidance of Allah?

How can we seek honour while remaining enslaved to a system that submits to people rather than Allah? How can we escape this cycle of pursuing recognition while remaining dependent on those whose approval we seek? And how can we restore Muslim honour without first identifying the problem at its root?

The responsibility now lies with us to critically examine Sir Syed’s vision and address the gap between modern education and our Islamic foundations. It is up to us to determine how we shape the future. Thus, it is imperative that we critically evaluate each perspective and draw conclusions in accordance with Islam. Because:

Allah se kare door, who ta‘leem bhi fitna,

Amlaak bhi, jaageer bhi fitna;

Na-haq pe uthe to shamsheer bhi fitna,

Shamsheer bhi kya, na‘ra-e-takbeer bhi fitna.

English translation:

“Any education that distances us from Allah is a source of fitnah.

Possessions and estates, too, can become sources of fitnah.

If raised for an unjust cause, even the sword becomes a source of fitnah.

And what of the sword? Even the cry of ‘Allahu Akbar’ can become a source of fitnah”

1. Arshad Islam, “Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and Muslim Shift to Modern Education,” Quarterly Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society (2007) 31, 103, quoting Edward Thompson and G. T. Garrett, Rise and Fulfillment of British Rule in India (New York: AMS Press, 1971) 462, available at: https://examplelink.com (last accessed 2 November 2025). ↑
2. Ibid., 104 ↑
3. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān wa huwa al-hudā wa al-furqān, vol. 1 (Lahore: Rifahe-Aam Steam Press, 1880), 56, https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/tafsirul-quran-wa-huwal-huda-wal-furqan-volume-001-sir-syed-ahmad-khan-ebooks ↑
4. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, “Tabaqat-i-‘Ulum-i-Din” [The Categories of the Religious Sciences], Tahzib-ul-Akhlaq, vol. 2, no. 1 (1872), p. 10. ↑
5. Rahmani Begum Mohammad Ruknuddin Hassaan, The Educational Movement of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, 1858–1898 (PhD thesis, SOAS University of London, 1959), 213, 254, 257, 437. https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29491/1/10731647.pdf ↑
6. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Majmuah-i Lectures, 276–298, https://al-islam.org/history-muslim-philosophy-volume-2-book-8/chapter-81-renaissance-indo-pakistan-continued-sir-sayyid. ↑
7. Supra Note. 11 ↑
8. AMC, ‘Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Properties of Matter, Naturalism, Dr Israr Ahmad’, YouTube, available at: https://youtu.be/O-x7UYUrFZE (last visited on 17 October 2026). ↑
9. Qur’an, Surah Al-Baqarah 2:282, Translation by Saheeh International, accessed via Quran.com, October 17, 2026, https://quran.com/fr/la-vache/282. ↑
10. Qur’an, Surah Al-Baqarah 2:2–3, Translation by Saheeh International, accessed via Quran.com, October 17, 2026, https://quran.com/fr/la-vache/2-3. ↑
11. Qur’an, Surah An-Nahl 16:8, Translation by Saheeh International, accessed via Quran.com, October 17, 2026, https://quran.com/fr/les-abeilles/8. ↑
12. Qur’an, Surah Al-‘Ankabut 29:20, Translation by Saheeh International, accessed via Quran.com, October 17, 2026, https://quran.com/fr/laraignee/20. ↑
13. Abul Hasan ‘Ali Nadwi, Western Civilisation, Islam and Muslims, trans. Dr. Mohammad Asif Kidwai, Revised and Enlarged ed. (Lucknow: Academy of Islamic Research and Publications) Vol. II, 68, quoting Tahzib-ul-Akhlaq, Vol. II, 1, available at: https://www.muslim-library.com/dl/books/English-Western-Civilization-Islam-And-Muslims.pdf (last accessed 2 November 2025). ↑
14. Ibid., p. 70. ↑
15. Md Yousuf Ali and Osman Bakar, ‘Syed Ahmad Khan’s Twin Objectives of Educational Reforms in British India: Muslim Advancement and Hindu-Muslim Unity’ (2021) 26(1) Al-Shajarah: Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilisation, ISTAC, IIUM Press, 54, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354946855_SYED_AHMAD_KHAN’S_TWIN_OBJECTIVES_OF_EDUCATIONAL_REFORMS_IN_BRITISH_INDIA_Muslim_Advancement_and_Hindu-Muslim_Unity ↑
16. S. Muhammad, The Aligarh Movement (A Concise Study) (Aligarh: Educational Book House, 1999), quoted in Dr. Nasrin, “Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s Vision on Education,” International Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 1, No. 7 (December 2012), available at: https://www.worldwidejournals.com/international-journal-of-scientific-research-(IJSR)/fileview.php?val=December_2012_1354295327_26e08_25.pdf (accessed 2 November 2025). ↑
17. Edward W Said, Orientalism (Vintage Books, a Division of Random House, New York). ↑
18. ↑
19. Qur’an, Surah Adh-Dhariyat 51:56, Translation by Saheeh International, accessed via Quran.com, October 17, 2026, https://quran.com/adh-dhariyat/56. ↑
20. Qur’an, Surah Al-A‘raf 7:179, Translation by Saheeh International, accessed via Quran.com, October 17, 2026, https://quran.com/al-araf/179. ↑
21. Qur’an, Surah Yusuf 12:33, Translation by Saheeh International, accessed via Quran.com, October 17, 2026, https://quran.com/yusuf/33. ↑
22. Qur’an, Surah Yusuf 12:24, Translation by Saheeh International, accessed via Quran.com, October 17, 2026, https://quran.com/yusuf/24. ↑
23. Qur’an, Surah Yusuf 12:56, Translation by Saheeh International, accessed via Quran.com, October 17, 2026, https://quran.com/yusuf/56. ↑
24. Qur’an, Surah Al-Baqarah 2:216, Translation by Saheeh International, accessed via Quran.com, October 17, 2026, https://quran.com/al-baqarah/216. ↑
25. Qur’an, Surah An-Nisa 4:139, Translation by Saheeh International, accessed via Quran.com, October 17, 2026, https://quran.com/an-nisa/139. ↑